Estimadas colegas, Over the past decade or so, one of the issues that I have learned about -- by reading feminist literature, teaching women studies courses, and engaging in collaborative action research and community-based struggles -- relates to the problem of how we communicate. This is an obvious problem and Ecofem members have raised it frequently with wonderful results. Here at Colorado College, the faculty and students have long debated issues related to communication, language, knowledge, and -- of course -- power. For example, the College's current core curriculum (the so-called Alternative Perspectives "A" and "B") divides the general education requirements into the "A" and "B" alternative perspectives. The "AP: A" area involves courses about the western tradition i.e., western civilization, Renaissance culture, western political tradition, etc. The "AP:B" requirements involves courses about "non-western cultures" -- which is a problematic way of defining this area of the curriculum -- since the "Other" is defined a priori as the absence of something (i.e., non-"whatever" as in non-white, non-western, etc.). This definition implies a hierarchy of power through the privileging of that which is posited as "western" knowledge. The AP: B area of our curriculum is further subdivided into "international" studies, "women" studies, and "American ethnic" studies. It is thus possible for our students to take, say, a course on Buddhism and another course on Japanese aesthetics to fulfill the two unit AP: B requirement. This is not problematic in itself, since presumably studies of Buddhism and far eastern aesthetics are important and interesting aspects of knowledge and culture. However, it also means that many of our students study "exotic" cultures -- presumably "faraway" peoples and cultures -- without ever being exposed to courses that deal with women studies or the contradictions and difficulties in U.S. "race" and ethnic relations. Many ethnic minority and women students are thus justifiably upset that the "core" curriculum does not allow for equity in the opportunities for experience with women and ethnic studies as distinct domains of knowledge. Our curricular structure thus marginalizes certain voices. There is another related issue -- one which I believe also strikes deep at the heart of the epistemology of ecofeminism as a political philosophy and social theory aiming to transform the world (i.e., systems, structures, and processes of domination and resistance). This has to do, in the context of the Colleges AP:B curriculum, with the inclusion/exclusion of diiverse voices in the courses designated as international, women, or American ethnic studies. For example, some faculty (white males) teach courses on India, Japan, China, Mexico, Russia, etc. and yet principally rely on books within the dominant canon -- i..e., written by white male European or American authors. Books about Mexico by Anglo-American authors are used without regard to the existence of "native" voices. In my own courses, I make every effort to juxtapose these "colonial" and "post-colonial" (native voices), all the while recognizing that this does not resolve the problem of a dualistic (or dialectical) structure of thinking on my part. However, the inclusion or exclusion of certain voices does pose the problem (not so much of essentialism as) of positionality. I do not take the essentialist position of advocating that only people of color should teach ethnic studies or that only women (and feminists at that) should teach women studies courses. However, to give one example, when a male professor ventures into the terrain of women, international, or ethnic studies and does so without regard for the voices of women, people of color, or other marginal groups, then the issue of power and ethics must be invoked! I wonder hos this discussion group views these issues -- not just in the context of the classroom but of this group as well? When we position ourselves in this discourse about ecofeminism, and we do so in an endlessly strident, disrespectful, or domineering manner, we betray some of the epistemological principles that -- at least for some ecofeminists -- remain invioable sign posts for a more subversive, and loving, discourse. On another note: I agree with Bertina that "societal structure" and "economics" defintely plays a role in all aspects of life and the environment. I also agree that a "Marxian" revolution has never been witnessed. There is an intense discourse about the issues of feminism, Marxism, postcolonialism, and the environment that we might wish to address in this discussion group. For example, consider the following statements -- both made by a water court judge in Colorado during a trial that posed a transnational gold mining corporation against Chicana/o farmers who were struggling to protect the watershed: "I don't want the opponents parading a bunch of emotional people in front of this bench. Water court is a very strict scientific and legal matter and I don't want the opponents to get all emotional." "This would have been much more interesting, if the opponents had more money to hire better experts." The fact that Battle Mountain Gold had money to "hire better experts" privileged its position in the water court battle against the local and quite ancient irrigation community of the acequias in San Luis, Colorado. The tyranny of the cult of scientific expertise was claerly embraced by a legal system that considered BMG's right to mine gold on private property sacrosanct and the irrigation rights of the indigenous community to be less than worthy of sacrifice at the altar of capitalist exploitation and maldevelopment. The lead "environmental engineer" for BMG was a woman who spoke disparagingly of the locals as superstitious and alarmist dupes of outsider enviro-agitators. The way in which class, race, and gender intersect in a case like this challenges us to develop a more nuance approach to the problem of positionality. How might an ecofeminist deal with this example? The example would seem to undermine any essentialist notions about women by nature (or culture) being brought up to be closer to nature than men. In this case, the female engineer bought into the cult of scientific expertise and was trapped into her role as a "servant of power," while the Chicano acequias farmers -- mainly male and quite "traditionally" so -- were the ones leading the struggle against the destruction of the earth. Gwyn Kirk, in her article dealing with Chicanas/os and ecofeminism (Subversive Kin book), makes the following observation: Gender....is highly significant in Chicano environmentalism but this is not a concept of gender separated from race and class perspectives. Chicana activists see their identity as women integrated with their ethnic identity. Race is equally, if not more, a place of empowerment for them compared to gender....Malia Davis's respondents (in another chapter of the book) struggle with the difficulties of being strong women in a male-dominated culture and sometimes find themselves in conflict with their culture's traditional gender roles. But such activists are not interested in separating thmselves from the men of their community [nor priviliging their relationship to nature as distinctly more harmonious compared to men] and frame their activisim, as women, in class and race conscious ways. More on these issues, later.....I look forward to your responses, Respectfully, and Belatedly, Happy Thanksgiving to all, Devon > -----Original Message----- > From: Bertina Miller [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 7:00 PM > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT > Subject: RE: A Lurker Finally Posts > > Well I think it depends on your own perspective. As a feminist I > realize that not all feminists think alike. Something that isnt talked > about much, maybe for fear of backlash or quibbling. Societal structure > and economics definitely play roles in all aspects of life and > certainly affects the environment. Whether the answers are to be found in > alternate political or social structures is debatable. Not everyone will > agree the answers are to be found through a Marxian revolution (which I > think we truly havent witnessed yet) or through an internal struggle with > the powers that be. I think those ideas have been out there and debated > since the 60s when action spoke louder than words and physical > demonstrations brought about some changes. Some say the changes were > momentary and ideological only and some say that the changes made then are > still being felt today. I say yes the changes the 60s brought to the world > influenced the way we debate, the way the world looks at politics and > race. Now though, there was/is a backlash that began in the 80s (maybe > even in the 70s) and the expression of protest has been filtered into > internal struggles with the political and business structures. Whether the > methods of the 60s and the methods of today are more effective also is > debatable. > > Is this what you were looking for? > > Bertina > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, sarah clifton wrote: > > > I totally agree. I joined the list only recently precisely because I > > wanted to discuss the implications and applications of ecofeminist > > theory, as well as the theory itself. > > > > May I pose a question for discussion? > > > > As we have been discussing, ecofemism requires a recognition, followed > > by a rejection of authoritarian systems which inherently place womyn, > > animals, and nature in a subordinate position. We have, I believe, > > consitently defined such a system as patriarchy. However, the > > methodology with which we approach the symptoms of patriarchy, i.e. > > Capitalism, Imperialism, Domination, etc. have a strong overlap with > > both socialist (Marxian) and anarchist philosophy. My question is this: > > How do you all, as ecofeminists, approach movements for labor-equality, > > anti-militarism, etc.? Do you find more overlap between socialism and > > feminism, anarchy and feminism, or no overlap at all? > > > > In Sisterhood, > > Sarah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Devon Pena[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 10:11 PM > > > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT > > > Subject: A Lurker Finally Posts > > > > > > > Dear Ecofem Colleagues, > > > > > > > > I supposed I have been a "lurker" for too long (having been on this > > > list > > > > since it was initiated in 1994-95?). It has been a long time since > > > I > > > > posted anything to this listserv but find that the recent direction > > > of > > > > discussion, especially that which has been provoked by Angela's > > > defense of > > > > Christianity, is much too over-wrought and of limited in value -- > > > > especially for a group of people that is presumably concerned with > > > actual > > > > struggles -- i.e., as opposed to unending ideological debate. > > > > > > > > There are so many issues that we could address in this group. Allow > > > me > > > > some examples: > > > > > > > > 1) the relationship of anti-racist struggles to ecofeminist theory > > > and > > > > practice; for example, the Southwest Network for Environmental and > > > > Economic Justice, (SNEEJ) has brought anti-racist and feminist > > > demands > > > > together in calling for an end to the militiarization of the economy > > > in > > > > New Mexico and other parts of the Southwest. Is anyone on this list > > > even > > > > familiar with actual environmental justice and ecofeminist > > > campaigns? We > > > > are always so caught up in ideological debate that we seldom seem to > > > > address issues of strategy and tactics that ENGAGE us in actual > > > struggles > > > > or that provide an opportunity to learn from actual struggles that > > > are > > > > unfolding in our own communities (barrios, ghettos, reservations, > > > inner > > > > cities, suburbs, bioregions, etc.). > > > > > > > > 2) the relationship between worker-owned and self-managed workplace > > > > cooperatives and the building of alternative organizational forms > > > that > > > > reflect ecofeminist principles (think of the hundreds of examples of > > > third > > > > world women's cooperatives or similar examples within the US). What > > > might > > > > we learn from a discourse over the democratization of the workplace? > > > > > > > > 3) the Zapatista challenge - i.e., the implications of new social > > > > movements for ecofeminist ethics and strategies for the circulation > > > of > > > > struggle from community to institutions. > > > > > > > > 4) the ecofeminist contribution to the critique of western science > > > and > > > > technology; from time to time I have seen postings on the struggles > > > > against genetically-modified foods, biopiracy, patents on life, etc. > > > Why > > > > can't we discuss the campaign against the patenting of life? Is > > > this not > > > > a critical issue for ecofeminists concerned with the threats posed > > > to > > > > ecological and cultural diversity by biotechnology, GATT, NAFTA, > > > etc.? > > > > > > > > I could list a dozen or more such issues that would allow us to take > > > > discussion into new areas of immediate strategic, tactical, > > > > epistemological, and ethical significance. Shall we give it a try > > > and > > > > limit our dogmatic ideological debates to private communications > > > among and > > > > between the members of the listserver? > > > > > > > > More later..... > > > > > > > > Yours warmly, > > > > > > > > Devon Pe�a, Associate Professor > > > > Sociology Department > > > > and Rio Grande Bioregions Project > > > > Colorado College > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
